If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

The Fight for Gay Marriage

Yesterday, I attended my third gay marriage. While it wasn’t legal, no police came in to break up the festivities either. But since the couple have a baby daughter, it would be nice if they had the legal protection that straight couples have for our children.

Currently, gay marriage isn’t legal in the state of Pennsylvania (where this wedding took place). In the state of New York, gay marriage is on the cusp of becoming legal, but one of three New York State Republican Senators have to move from undecided to supporting marriage equality.

Personally, I am tired of this state by state battle. I think the President should have put some serious pressure on the House and Senate and pushed an Amendment to the Constitution. Now that Democrats no longer control the House, it seems unlikely that would happen now. It was a wasted opportunity on the President’s part (one of many).

Still, I think it would be a valuable step in the right direction for the House to push such an amendment even now. While it would probably lose, it would put people on the record and in a nation in which a majority of the public now support marriage equality, it would be interesting to see who stands against the force of the public and of history.

That’s right I said the force of history. We have come to the point in which gay marriage has become inevitable. The issue has now become when, not if. So we are at that point where politicians have to choose if they want to be on the winning side of history or if they are going to stand in the way of progress and be labeled as standing in the way of freedom by history. This perspective alone could change the votes needed to create a Constitutional amendment. But something like that needs leadership and our President is just not that kind of leader.




Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Jason

    Since you mention it at the end of the first paragraph, I think it is important to discuss what type of protections marriage offers children of gay couples and how marriage itself impacts parental rights for any couple as compared to civil union status and other types of partnerships. I know there is a whole slew of privileges offered to married vs. unmarried couples, but I’d like to hear more about the children.

    In any case I think the government should keeps its nose out of the matrimony business altogether. If any two or more people want to enter into such a bond or pact (call it marriage if you like), the government’s only response should be to enforce equal protection at the federal level and not question it further. The problem is when those who uphold it as a “sacred institution” interfere with the legislative process in such a way as to turn it into a legal institution. This is why I think the term “marriage” should be deleted from the legal lexicon and the government should only be dealing in civil unions, which should be the only recognized and legally protected status between two or more individuals, granting to them the same rights as those who consider themselves married. Call me crazy, but it seems like the most civilized way of resolving this issue.